Lieberman's motives

[bain_sidhe]

I made this post in a reply to another post, but I think it's an important enough point to call out in it's own thread... Steve Benen caught something I don't think has yet been part of the mix in this whole Lieberman thing... The committee that Lieberman is fighting so hard to keep chairing, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, is responsible for oversight of the executive branch.

As Benen points out...

As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman's House counterpart -- Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee -- was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.

And yet, now Lieberman acts as if keeping this chairmanship is the single most important part of his public life. Why would he be so desperate to keep the gavel of a committee he hasn't used? I'll let you in on a secret: he wants to start using the power of this committee against Obama.

Lieberman didn't want to hold Bush accountable, but he seems exceedingly anxious to keep the committee that would go after Obama with a vengeance, effectively becoming a Waxman-like figure -- holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching investigations against the Democratic president.

Lieberman doesn't care about "reconciliation," he cares about going after a Democratic administration. Why else would he fight diligently to be chairman of one committee instead of another?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015577.php

If the price of keeping Lieberman in the Dem caucus is to give him the power to do to Obama what the Repubs did to Clinton after 1994, then the price is too high. Even if he would be the 60th member. Besides which, even if he IS the 60th member of the Democratic caucus, there's little indication that he'd be a reliable 60th VOTE to end a filibuster, which is the only real value of a 60-member caucus over a 59-member caucus.

[AlCzervik]

1. yes and he will leak info to the other side, no way can he keep that chairmanship

i wish people would get that's it's way more important than how he votes in the senate. He simply cannot and should not be trusted.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Lieberman will become another Ken Starr

He protected GOP wrongdoing, but will be a willing tool to the rightwing.

Off with his head!

[HowHasItComeToThis]

3. YES, THE HEAD

[floridablue]

4. Isn't Homeland Security also the largest pork budget ?

[bain_sidhe]

5. I don't know if his committee does the budget

or just the oversight of Homeland Security. But, if it does do the budget for HS, that would be yet another reason to strip him of that chairmanship.

But, IMHO, the main reason is the committee's potential for "oversight abuse" mischief.

[dkf]

6. He is one of them...

We need to kick him out instead of giving him the ability to sabotage us.

[WeDidIt]

7. I GUARANTEE, give Lieberman a chair, he WILL go after Obama

The vindicitive little shit has NO HONOR!!!

There is no value whatsoever in keeping him wihtin the caucus.

[bain_sidhe]

8. This is my feeling too

there may be some value in keeping him within the caucus, especially since we may, in fact, end up one member shy of 60 (counting Bernie Sanders as a reliable member, not counting Lieberman)... but not if this chairmanship is the price.

[WeDidIt]

9. If the only way to keep Lieberman in the caucus is to give him a chairmanship

then there is no value whatsoever in keeping him in the caucus.

Any chairmanship would be wielded as a weapon against Obama.

[bain_sidhe]

10. Good point

I had supposed that a chairmanship of some other committee might be less problematical, but when it comes right down to it, the chairman decides what issues that committee would take up... meaning there's a lot more potential for mischief than I'd realized.